CORRECTION – At Last ….. the truth comes out on the DWP EIR Report!

(In an earlier article …..WUSB incorrectly identified Mr. Goldberg as a Plannning Commissioner. He is not a city employee….but he was appointed to the Planning Commission by Councilman Gordon Shanks. But in our opinion he is an extraordinary public citizen.)

On May 2, 2012, at the Planning Commission meeting a report was given by Robert Goldberg .…THAT FULLY EXPLAINED… how the “70%/30%” open space vs developed space has been confused and misguided for many years.  How much by design and how much by ignorance cannot be judged at this time but it was refreshing to hear someone appointed by the city stand up and tell it like it was.

Robert Goldberg’s Slide #1 was entitled  CONCERNS:  A- The EIR GREATLY underestimates the potential loss of open space. B- “My (Goldberg’s) estimate is the open space loss is approximately 1.5 acres not the 0.2 shown in the EIR . C- EIR does not accurately inform the publlic regarding a critical issue – loss of open space!” (WSUB Emphasis)

Part of same slide HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?   A- EIR incorrectly concludes that the legal description of the Specific Plan area does not support the use of 70/30.  B- EIR staff were provided with an incomplete Specific Plan map.   C-EIR incorrectly  uses Central Way as the ‘line in the sand” ….rathr than the 70/30 split it should have been

Next slide: Legal Description: Nothing to do with 70/30 land split.  It just describes the boundary of all property in the Specific Plan. It goes on to say that the “Legal Description” has no language regarding the 70/30 split (70% open space) or “where to draw the line.”   Further it does not describe the sub-area subject to Land Use Development Standards.  This sub-area is defined by the Land Use Development Map which is included as “Exhibit A”

The next slide shows the Land Use Development Map which clearly shows that all development is to on the ‘northerly’  part of the land.  That would be on the side of Central Street closest to Pacific Coast Highway…and that no development should be done on any portion of what would be the extension of Central.  The legal boundary map….on the same slide shows that part of the legal boundary is actually in the riverbed!

Next Goldberg asks the question …”SO WHICH MAP DO  WE USE FOR 70/30?”     Section A: Introduction  3-location describes the entire boundary of the Specific Plan   Section B   1-Loation ” the general location of all principle land uses is shown in Exhibit A”   3- Visitor Serving “northerly 30%” and 4-Open Space….the southerly 70%

Goldberg goes on to say “So what does all this mean?   It means that the llegal description includes 1.3 acres of river, levee rocks, and riverfront land that was intentionally not included in the LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN!   Since the river/riverfront area was excluded by the the Land Use Development map this area is not covered by the 70/30 provisions of the Plan and was never intended to contribute to the 70% open space requirement.

A- Open Space provided by Specific Plan  totals 7.9 acres:  River/Riverfront area is 1.3 acres.  Development area is 6.6 acres (70% x 9.46 ac) B-Open Space provided by the Proposaltotals 6.4 acres:   River/riverfront area 1.2 acres; Development area: 5.2 acres.

That difference is 1.5 acres….not 0.2 acres as stated in the EIR

There are additional maps in Mr. Goldbergs presentation which you can find on line, HOWEVER, Mr Goldberg finishes with the following:

WHAT HAPPENED?

A- Its unclear.

B- the 1996 revisions (Resolution 4444) to the Specific Plan did not change the map.

C- A “user-friendly” version of the Specific Plan was created the next day by the City Staff

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

A-Use of the southern border of Central Way as the “line in the sand” by the EIR is clearly not the intent of the Specific Plan (…even if it might be what the  Bay City Partners would like. WSUB emphasis)

B-The EIR use of Central Way inappropriately underestimates potential loss of open space

Much of this report is technological jargon which gets confusing when one doesn’t have the maps in front of them.  Robert Goldberg’s report was excellent and we apologize for not being able to copy it in its entirety here. We encourage you to contact him by email for more information.

For more info and copies of the slides go to <rgoldberg@live.com>

They Are Out to Destroy “Mayberry by the Sea!”

More On Seal Beach Neighbors vs Bay City Partners !

(As mentioned in earlier articles, What’s Up in Seal Beach receives periodic reports from a large group of Seal Beach residents who are in opposition to the Bay City Partners group who are trying put a high density residential development on the old DWP land on the waterfront beginning at First and Ocean. What follows was received at 9 p.m. Tuesday evening.)

SEAL BEACH NEIGHBORS: Thank you again for coming to the DWP Advisory Committee meeting.  We think the Council is beginning to ‘hear’ you. Tomorrow night is the “rescheduled” EQCB Meeting at 6PM in the Council Chambers. Let’s see if they try to reschedule it again!

Remember that the DWP land has been on the “high priority list” of the Coastal Commission for many years. The current owners have owned this property for 10 years and all they’ve done is construct a “block-out-the-view spite fence” and allowed motor cross to destroy the natural vegetation and perhaps natural habitats. Good Guys…they are not!

They currently have threatened the City of Seal Beach with lawsuits if the Council does not change the zoning to fit their needs. We need your help us stop the over development of this land.

Schedule of coming meetings:

* EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board)  Wednesday April 26th at 6PM in the City Council Chambers

* Planning Commission Final EIR & Project Recommendation Wednesday May 2nd      7:30 PM in the City Council Chambers

* City Council (1st hearing) Final EIR & Final Project hearing   Monday June 11  7PM

* City Council (2nd hearing) Final EIR & Final project hearing   Monday June 25  7PM

Remember:

*The Developers not only are trying to change the existing zoning they are going to get a lot of money from the city….and we are going to pay for it!

• 48 row houses densely packed end to end & a severe reduction of the planned park land  will be covered in concrete( This is the last bluff on Southern California Coast)

*   These houses will be jammed on 25′ narrow lots.

• There will be costly  concessions from the rest of  us to these developers.

We will have to pay the developers $900,000 to lease the driveway to 1st Street parking lot & we will get ZER0 of the Parking fees!

We are still trying to find out how something like this slipped through without the citizens being told.

We don’t want:

* Increased traffic, noise, pollution

* Increased costs for sewers, roads, water, schools

* Increased FIRE and POLICE costs

* Cancellation of Open Space that has been planned for over 10 years!

DWP SCHEDULE ANNOUNCED BY PERSICO- 1ST MEETING MONDAY SEPT 19

“WHAT’S UP IN SEAL BEACH” RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING LETTER THURSDAY EVENING.

Dear Community Members,
You are receiving this email because you’ve expressed an interest in the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment project. Attached is a schedule outlining the review process for the DWP project.

The first meeting of the DWP Advisory Committee is on Monday, September 19 at 6:30PM in the City Council Chambers.  There will be numerous opportunities for the you to review and comment on the project. Please review the schedule to see what topics will be discussed at the various meetings.

Thank you for your interest in this project.
Regards,
Mark H. Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach – 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527 Ext. 1313

What follows is the information contained in the attachments to the email sent by Mr. Persico:

Attachment #1

CITY OF SEAL BEACH DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SPECIFIC PLAN   ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA Revised Start Time – Sept 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Advisory Committee, this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the Agenda or re-arrange the order of the Agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Advisory Committee regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee, provided that the Advisory Committee may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
AGENDA ITEMS
1.    Approval of minutes of the February 17, 2010 Committee Meeting
2.    Discussion of Hotel Studies

a.Peer Review Study (Kosmont Companies September 2011)

b. PKF Study 2009
3.    Receive and File:

a.City Council staffr eport and project timeline, September12,2011

b. Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

Attachment #2

Also attached was the following Schedule for future meetings on the feasibility studies for  the  project:

NOTE IF NO TIME IS SHOWN…NO MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THAT DAY.

-Sept 19 Hotel Study/Draft EIR            6:30 p.m.

-Nov 8, Draft EIR released for Public Review

-Nov 15 EQCB  on Draft EIR            6 p.m.

-Nov 16 Archaeology Section of Draft EIR 6 p.m.

-Nov 17 Draft EIR & Land Use Change  6:30 p.m.

-Dec 23  COMMENTS DUE ON Draft EIR

-Feb 1, 2012 “FINAL” EIR released for Public Review

-Feb 6, 2012 Technical Review of Subdivision Map – 6 p.m.

-Feb 8, 2012  Street Tree Removal and Tree selection – 3 p.m.

-Feb 8, 2012 Final Project Recommendation  6:30 p.m.

-Feb 15, 2012 Planning Commission (1^st Hearing)  Final EIR & Project Review  7:30

-Feb 22, 2012 Open Space and Parks Issues  6 p.m.

-Feb 29, 2012 (2^nd Hearing) Final EIR & Project Review            7:30

-March 12, 2012 (City Council – 1^st Hearing)  Final EIR and Final Project  7 p.m.

-March 26, 2012 (City Council – 2nd Hearing)  Final EIR and Final Project  7 p.m.

All Meetings will be in the City Council Chambers * = Dates & Times are subject to change please check City website for most recent information

“WHAT’S UP IN SEAL BEACH” APOLOGIZES IT CANNOT GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THE MEETINGS…but we urge the citizens to stay active during the next 7 months.  The outcome of this project is of singular significance to the future of Seal Beach.

PLEASE CONTACT Mark Persico (562) 431-2527 IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION.

What July 4th means to this little American

Madeline Rose Rootlieb didn’t need to be told by anyone.

On her Daddy John’s shoulders he couldn’t even see her little hand was held over her heart. Of course it brought a tear to his eye when he saw the picture.

Madeline – 3 1/2 years young –  was participating in the Pledge of Allegiance during the Brook Street 4th of July celebration in Laguna Beach.

A proud little American girl and maybe a future leader?

Happy Fourth to us all.

Local Audabon Warns of EIR Omissions on DWP Project

6-16-11

El Dorado Audubon                                                                                                California Chapter of The National Audubon  Society Long Beach, Seal Beach and surrounding  communities

June 13, 2011- City of Seal Beach-211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740

Att: Mark Persico, AICP, Director of Development  Services (562)431-2527
RE: Dept. of Water and Power Specific Plan  Amendment, Initial Study, June 2011

(Ed Note- This article is longer than we usually run…but Mary Parcell lists many potential environmental problems.)

Project Location: The project site is generally bounded by Marina Drive to the  north, 1st Street to the east, the Rivers End Cafe/beach  parking lot to the south, and the San Gabriel River to the  west.

We (local Audubon) are concerned  with open space (7O% in current plan), impact on wetlands per California  Coastal Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, impact on migratory  wildlife corridors, and impacts on species Department of Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service (see  below).

Open Space
“The proposed project includes approximately 6.4  acres of open space/parkland, in addition to the residential uses discussed above. The DWP Specific Plan Amendment would revise  (Read ‘reduce’) the open space area from 70 percent to 60 percent within the  Specific Plan. Proposed park uses would include, but not be limited to: natural areas with trails, passive turf areas, and neighborhood-serving play areas (e.g., “tot-lots).”

Due to the value and sensitivity of our coastal  Resources:  We do not support the change from 70% to 60% of open space  (requires Specific Plan Amendment).  Also, questions have been raised that this is really a change from 70% to  50%!

California Coastal Commission: Coastal  Development Permit required

We support open space (30% and visitor serving use, hotel, (70%) as specified in existing plan.  Preference given to .100% open space due to location next to the San Gabriel River  and the ocean. “Coordination with other agencies and adjacent jurisdictions  referenced in this document may also be required, including, but not limited to: City of Long  Beach; Los Angeles County  Flood Control District; and California Department of  Transportation.”

There is no documentation from California Dept. of Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US  Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies with jurisdiction over  biological resources.

Potentially Significant Impacts have not been studied as follows:

-Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?- Potentially Significant Impact. There are two primary sources of  light: light emanating from building interiors  that pass through windows and light from exterior  sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and  landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent uses, diminish the view of the clear night  sky and, if uncontrolled, can disturb wildlife in natural habitat areas. Lighting associated with  non-residential uses may cause spillover impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. No light sources currently exist at the project site (other than the residential unit located at the northwestern corner of the  project site).

Short-term light and glare impacts associated with construction  activities would likely be limited to nighttime lighting (for security purposes) in the evening hours.  In accordance with Title 7 of the Municipal Code, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, the  project’s  construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between  8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday.

Construction activities are also prohibited on Sundays. Further  review is necessary to confirm whether potential construction-related lighting would create a new  source of substantial light or glare in the project area.

The project would result in the future development of residential uses and park/open space uses. The future uses would include street lighting, security lighting, and lighting associated with the interior of structures. These new light sources would create nighttime  lighting and glare in the project area. Thus, further review is necessary.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through  habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status  species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of  Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site consists primarily of vacant land. The potential exists for candidate, sensitive, or special status species to be  located within the boundaries of the project site. Further review is necessary to confirm the project’s potential  impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or  other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or  by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. While no known riparian habitat is present on-site, based on the property’s proximity to the San Gabriel River and coastline,  there is a  potential for sensitive natural communities to occur on-site. Further review is necessary to confirm  the project’s potential impacts in this regard.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,  vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other  means?

Potentially Significant Impact. Currently, the site is undeveloped  (with the exception of one residential structure), and may have the potential to contain wetlands, as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Coastal Commission (CCC).  Further review is necessary to confirm the project’s potential impacts to Federally protected  wetlands.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory  wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for the project to  interfere with movement of species or to affect migratory wildlife corridors requires further  review.

Sincerely,

Mary Parsell – 1st VP & Conservation Chair, El Dorado Audubon SocietyCelebration 43 years of Conservation, Education and Citizen  Science

(Readers are encouraged to go to Monday’s Council Meeting June 20 at 7 p.m.

Council Gets an Ear-full from Angry Citizens

Well, they had a full house to hear the Advocates for the planned Ocean Park for the first time be allowed to question our City Council on why they approved the Bay City development without allowing public input.

First to speak, however, was City Planner Marc Persico who after a lengthy monologue that really said not very much finished with the benefits to the city.  It boiled down to what a wonderful deal it was for the city – “The city now has access to the city sewer system” (Honest – – that was pretty much it.) Does anyone really think Bay City Partners (BCP) wanted the sewer job….or that they could have denied the city access to the municipal sewer?  One thing it did prove is that when the City Council told BCP that “they would insure the  staff would do everything they could to get this development through” …the staff was doing what they were told to do.

First speaker was Geraldine West, a 44 year resident of Seal Beach.  She cited the law (Brwon Act) as she saw it against closed session decisions by City Councils and promoted legislative remedies against such decisions.

Next, Jim Caviola asked: Why the 1982 70/30 split in the city’s favor had been abandoned.   Why there was a new map that showed the city giving what amounted to $7 million  in additional lots to Bay City. Why the city is giving BCP $900,000 back of the $4 million they paid for the property?   Why won’t we require Bay City to pay the normal development fees?  Why are  ALL the city staff being required to testify FOR the BCP development?  – – does that include testifying in front of the Coastal Commission? Why is the city going to pay to remove a fence…that most believe was put up by BCP just to punish nearby residents who originally complained about the proposed development.

Next Robert Goldberg introduced a map that contradicted acceptance and also contradicted 2009 plot map..which showed 14 lots…and ½ of each of those lots was on land destined as open space parkland. Council was looking at that map as if they’d never seen it before and WUSB believes most of them hadn’t.

Goldberg also quoted from emails between BCP personel and former City Mgr Whittenberg when BCP wanted to move the original line of demarcation between what had been established for development vs open space….and Wittenberg responded favorably after only 27 minutes? Not much time for in-depth analysis.

Next Mike Bulbe asked to see the original plans of the DWP plant in order to see if it had been “cleaned” up to standards acceptable today …or even to standards of the time it was closed down.  He said “we don’t want another ARCO station debacle like we had with British Petroleum?”

Former councilman Paul Yost wanted to know why we hadn’t gotten permanent access to the beach via first street.  (WUSB would like to know why we had to pay for it – – seems doubtful the Coastal Commission would have allowed such access to be restricted?)

Looks like the Council is going to drag this out as long as they can.  At the next Council Meeting, Monday, June 20, we’ll be able to discuss the EIR report.  Was it done correctly?  Has a full EIR even been done for the DWP land? (Remember how the resurfacing of the pier was delayed almost 2 years because no EIR was done?)

The Advocates who are fighting this worthy battle for what is really a “Legacy Property” need you to be present to let this City Council that has turned into such a disappointment for us must review what they’ve done and allow the city to vote on this issue.

This Legacy Property, the portion was to be an open space park for ALL, is perhaps the most valuable ocean front left in Southern California.  IT SHOULD BE SAVED FOR EVERYONE!

SHOW UP MONDAY NIGHT AND BE HEARD!

Mike Bulbe invites EVERYONE…to the Monday Night Council Meeting

by Mike Bulbe

Dear Seal Beach Residents

If you are as confused and mystified about the DWP property (the 10 acres on First Street in Old Town) and how the city came to pay the developers $1,000,000 (yep, that’s a million dollars) for land that the developers cannot use, then come to the Seal Beach City Council meeting this Monday, June 13.  The city staff will explain this…. perhaps.

As it stands, the one million dollars the city spent bought approximately seven acres of land that has a history of contamination, the part where the power plant used to be. How this contamination has been handled is questionable, and it is not clear to me what level of cleanup has been achieved.  If the DWP property is anything like contaminated sites around the country and in other parts of Seal Beach, there is no telling how much liability the city is taking on, nor how much it will cost to resolve.

The developers originally planned 39 lots for houses on the DWP property, mostly on the part of the property that is away from the contamination.  Then the original 39 lots inflated to 48 lots on a bigger footprint of land.  The city actually GAVE the developers some additional land to account for some of the increase in the number of lots!

The City Council decided not to press the developers for money to create park or open space on the city’s purchased property. (This could have been done using existing state laws that allow cities to assess developers routinely.)

I could go on, but I think you understand what I’m driving at.  The developers bought ten acres of waterfront property for less than 5 million dollars, sold a portion of this to the city for a million dollars, and now plan 48 lots on the part that is left over.  It looks to me like the citizens of Seal Beach could be left holding the bag, a noxious bag, and so could the city council members.

Bring your questions to the Seal Beach City Council meeting.  That is this Monday, June 13, at 7 PM, at City Hall on Eighth Street in Old Town.

If you cannot attend, the meeting will be broadcast to Time Warner subscribers on channel 3.

DWP Overlay Boundaries Map 6-11[2]

This is an opportunity to create a legacy worthy of the future of Seal Beach.

Some common sense by a govt. body

It seems like the public is  constantly bombarded with news stories about government inefficiencies and stubborn attitudes by our leading political parties that refuse to moderate their positions.   With that thought in mind we are happy to report that the City Council of Seal Beach and the land owners of the DMV property have come to a meeting of the minds that would seem to satisfy everyone……or not satisfy everyone…… which is pretty much the same thing.

What follows is a press release by both parties in the dispute.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Ed Selich, Bay City Partners, LLC                                                                         Quinn Barrow, Attorney, City of seal Beach

(949) 723-6383                                                                                                                           (213)626-8484

Bay City Partners, LLC and City of Seal Beach Settle Litigation

Agreement is the first step to preserving significant waterfront open space for public use

Seal Beach, CA – March 29, 2011- Last night the Seal Beach City Council took action to assure continued public access to the beach and San Gabriel River Bike Trail. Bay City Partners, LLC and the City of Seal Beach reached agreement over ongoing litigation filed by both parties in 2009. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to dismiss their respective lawsuits.

If the City and California Coastal Commission approve Bay City’s pending proposal, Bay City will convey the southerly 70% of the DWP property to the City.

Mayor Michael Levitt said “This is a significant achievement for the community. Bay City’s concessions on beach access and the bike trail will enable the City to complete the Rivers End Staging Project on time and on budget. In addition, it is the first step in the process toward preserving over 6 acres of open space for public use.”

“This Settlement Agreement is a major step in ending the long and disruptive saga of the fate of the DWP site,” stated Bay City representative Ed Selich. “For more than 44 years, this land has sat in an unproductive and blighted state. Now it will finally come to life with beautiful open space and a residential project in scale and character with Old Town Seal Beach. Bay City looks forward to the day that we can remove the fence surrounding the property so that the grand vistas to the ocean are opened for all to enjoy.”

After almost 18 months of legal proceedings, the parties reached a settlement which is in the best interests of Seal Beach residents and taxpayers.

Key features are: • Stopping costly litigation, • Receiving a sewer access and maintenance easement, • Leasing the beach parking lot access road and bike trail on the DWP property, • Facilitating the receipt of a $2,000,000 Clean Water Act grant to improve the River’s End parking lot and San Gabriel River bike trail, • Preparing a comprehensive environmental impact report on Bay City’s proposal, • City payment of $900,000, and If the Coastal Commission approves Bay City’s proposal, the City purchases the 70% open space for $1,100,000

Bay City has submitted a proposal for a 48-lot residential project. The City will process the applications through the normal city channels, and conduct a series of public hearings. Our city council is to be commended as is Bay City Partners.

Most of the precious river front property on the left will be utilized as open space for the citizens. The development will be on the right side of the above photo and front 1st street.

An email sent by new Council Member Ellery Deaton last week summarizes the battle: “Tonight the City Council approved a settlement agreement with the DWP owners.  This settlement is the conclusion of the Council’s negotiations with Bay City Partners for last couple years.  As a new Councilmember and an 11th hour participant in the process, I supported the work of the Council and voted to end the costly court battles and put the project before the public for their comments and review.  It was very important to me to fulfill a promise I made to our constituents to reach a settlement to this matter, stop unnecessary litigation costs and retain 70% south of Central Way as open space for public use.  This settlement has accomplished these goals.

While it is unfortunate that under this agreement, the City will have to pay for the easement and open space, it is cheaper and more productive to stop litigating and move ahead with the public review process.  We will be paying $900,000 up front for the sewer easement; the $1.1 million agreed to for the open space will not be paid for nor the land deeded over until the project has received all it’s approvals, including Coastal Commission approval.”

We Love Ellery Deaton

Ellery Deaton is in a run-off for the Seal Beach council seat representing Old Town.

Ellery has a passion for keeping our beach town small and its village character alive.

Her experience with on the Seal Beach Planning Commission for the past eight years has proven that she listens to the concerns of all residents and acts in the best interest of its citizens.

She listens when we speak, leads when the going gets tough and loves Seal Beach.

She has worked for us eight years.

Keep her working for us the next four years!

This will be a mail in ballot.  You should have received it already.  If you haven’t CALL CITY HALL AND ASK WHY NOT?

You can choose to hand deliver the marked ballot to City Hall to the City Clerk’s office on the first floor or mail it back.

If you want more information on Ellery Deaton’s campaign, go to www.electellery.com <http://www.electellery.com/>

Your vote is needed!  Ellery would be seated now had just a few more voters gone to the polls. She got 49.6% of the vote.  Your vote makes a difference!

Please Return your ballot today!

Little love for tax increases by California Voters…but?

A new poll done by Greenberg Quislin and Rosner   http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=2548 found that California registered voters see no easy solution for the state’s budget woes. They want the new governor to focus on cutting spending – with little support for tax increases – but their highest priority is protecting spending for health care and education.

They do not want to cut services that they think are important to the state. Indeed, they want to increase spending on K-12, college and universities and health care.

By nearly three to one they believe the budget can best be reduced by cutting waste and inefficiency rather than cutting programs like health care and education.

There are some other great revelations that the independent pollsters felt came out of the research that was published in the L.A. Times on Friday November 18.  For full text go to: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-20101119,0,1562210.story – -and read the story by Cathleen Decker.

Next Page »